Will back to using his Nomad alt at MAD

[_stemelbow]

I don't have a psychological assessment. I'm still trying to figure out what drives people to defend what can't be defended. It's a mystery to me. I have the same puzzlement regarding young-earth creationists.

The mystery is this, if I may: There are people who truly hold faith as evidence. That is faith, or that which makes up their faith as in spiritual experiences and such, is the reason why they believe what they do. Their defense is often to point out the criticisms aren't as clear cut as the critics would like them to be. While Chris and Andrew feel they have nailed the coffin closed on the length of the missing portion of the papyrus, Will disagrees. I try to read their arguments and am left with a "who cares? for crying aloud we have nothing but a product of translation via God's miraculous powers. How are we do know and demonstrate its all wrong?" It seems to me, often, people just plain claim they know more than they do--they claim their arguments are more solid than they are--they claim they can do more than they can. Its just the way this all goes. Oh and that goes for both sides. We all like to try and make our arguments the most robust. But in the end, each argument will require at the very least some tweaking, even then we're left to re-tweat again and again because of new theories, technologies and innovations.

This is really going to be endless. There will rarely be a clear-cut winner, i think.

[_Buffalo]

I think you are asking too much of stem, emotionally that is.

its odd that my mention of him is in defense, often. That is I only mention him when others already bring him up and attack him. And somehow they aren't the one's being asked to let it go and move on. Buffalo is the one who said the other day that he is an obsessive man for doing much less than what Buffalo did here. Oh yeah, my point was already made, but no one is willing to see that. Oh well. I try.

Somehow I think obsessively tracking this forum for any mention of the name "Dr. Peterson" is a lot more hardcore than simply reading a few threads on the front page of MAD. Call me crazy.

[_stemelbow]

I'm not convinced you have a point, Stem. On the bright side, you managed to make another thread all about Dr. Peterson!

That's easy to do with you chumps around (;

[_Runtu]

The mystery is this, if I may: There are people who truly hold faith as evidence. That is faith, or that which makes up their faith as in spiritual experiences and such, is the reason why they believe what they do. Their defense is often to point out the criticisms aren't as clear cut as the critics would like them to be. While Chris and Andrew feel they have nailed the coffin closed on the length of the missing portion of the papyrus, Will disagrees. I try to read their arguments and am left with a "who cares? for crying aloud we have nothing but a product of translation via God's miraculous powers. How are we do know and demonstrate its all wrong?" It seems to me, often, people just plain claim they know more than they do--they claim their arguments are more solid than they are--they claim they can do more than they can. Its just the way this all goes. Oh and that goes for both sides. We all like to try and make our arguments the most robust. But in the end, each argument will require at the very least some tweaking, even then we're left to re-tweat again and again because of new theories, technologies and innovations.

This is really going to be endless. There will rarely be a clear-cut winner, i think.

I have no problem with faith being a type of evidence. One can have faith that the Book of Abraham is an inspired revelation/text from God and nevertheless recognize that it is not a translation of a record of Abraham that was associated with Michael Chandler's mummies.

A good example of this is David Bokovoy, who accepts the Book of Abraham as scripture but recognizes it isn't a translation of the papyrus. That is a wholly reasonable approach, and yet he's been vilified as a traitor and closet-apostate by those who insist on defending a literal translation.

I agree with you that the debate will never end, at least until Joseph Smith tells me, "I told you so!" But the evidence is solidly with the critics on the translation issue. Faith doesn't change that.

[_Chap]

I'm not convinced you have a point, Stem. On the bright side, you managed to make another thread all about Dr. Peterson!

That's easy to do with you chumps around (;

Well, I tried 'let it go' and here he still is ....

So let's try something different.

[_Buffalo]

I don't have a psychological assessment. I'm still trying to figure out what drives people to defend what can't be defended. It's a mystery to me. I have the same puzzlement regarding young-earth creationists.

The mystery is this, if I may: There are people who truly hold faith as evidence. That is faith, or that which makes up their faith as in spiritual experiences and such, is the reason why they believe what they do. Their defense is often to point out the criticisms aren't as clear cut as the critics would like them to be. While Chris and Andrew feel they have nailed the coffin closed on the length of the missing portion of the papyrus, Will disagrees. I try to read their arguments and am left with a "who cares? for crying aloud we have nothing but a product of translation via God's miraculous powers. How are we do know and demonstrate its all wrong?" It seems to me, often, people just plain claim they know more than they do--they claim their arguments are more solid than they are--they claim they can do more than they can. Its just the way this all goes. Oh and that goes for both sides. We all like to try and make our arguments the most robust. But in the end, each argument will require at the very least some tweaking, even then we're left to re-tweat again and again because of new theories, technologies and innovations.

This is really going to be endless. There will rarely be a clear-cut winner, i think.

But faith is NOT evidence. Well, it's evidence OF your convictions, but not evidence FOR your convictions.

[_stemelbow]

Chap, maybe it'd be appropriate if you got after posters here that are the critics who start threads about Peterson, Schryver et all to let it go already. Its odd you'll go after me to let it go but your partners who clearly don't let it go and bring these things up often, are the ones who are causing the problems.

[_stemelbow]

I agree with you that the debate will never end, at least until Joseph Smith tells me, "I told you so!" But the evidence is solidly with the critics on the translation issue. Faith doesn't change that.

Evidence is viewed subjectively. In that, sure it does. Faith changes that. That's why people believe, and that is why people still believe that the Book of Abraham is in some way a translation of the papyrus, even if its from the portion of missing papyrus.

[_Themis]

But faith is NOT evidence. Well, it's evidence OF your convictions, but not evidence FOR your convictions.

If it is then the Catholics and Muslims have significantly more evidence.

[_Runtu]

But faith is NOT evidence. Well, it's evidence OF your convictions, but not evidence FOR your convictions.

Faith can be evidence to trust in something, but it shouldn't outweigh the facts. I can believe that the Book of Mormon is inspired scripture while accepting that, not only is there no compelling evidence for its antiquity, but there is plenty of evidence against it.

Where we get in trouble is in saying that because we have faith or a testimony, the facts aren't really what they seem.

As Chico Marx put it, "Who you gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?"